Some of the many Lies and Misrepresentations spread by Osama Abdallah

I am usually not fast in calling anyone a liar. However, I am finally so sick of
Osama Abdallah's never ending twisting of the Bible that I have decided to start
this file, which will document how Osama lies about the Bible. In this article,
I will neither attempt to present detailed discussions of the passages that Abdallah
abuses — careful interpretation of these passages are available in other places,
whether on this site or on other Christian sites — nor will I discuss every
issue found in the articles that I raise an objection about. I will quote excerpts
of these articles and only point out how Abdallah makes obviously wrong claims for
the sole purpose of slandering the Bible, and does this in such a shameless way,
and so regularly, that these cases cannot be innocent oversights, but are definitely
deliberate misrepresentations.

Last year, when I exposed Abdallah's article, Islam's claim about
the 360 joints in the human body was proven to be true!, not only to be wrong, but to be a hoax,
he concluded that "This proves that I am doing a great job" because I was only objecting to one
of the articles in his "Science" section (see this article).
Before he comes back with a similarly ridiculous conclusion in response to this article,
I need to state explicitly that my selection of the parts I am discussing does not
mean that the remaining claims in his article(s) are correct. Partly they are already
refuted elsewhere since Abdallah constantly recycles the same arguments, partly they
may be errors of interpretation that are possibly misunderstandings, but still wrong.
In this article I am only concerned about some obvious and deliberate lies.

I will start this compilation with Abdallah's latest addition to his site:

The first instance is Abdallah's attempt to "counter-balance" the reports about a rather cruel
act of Muhammad:

Narrated Abu Qilaba:
Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them.
So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine
(as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd
of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning
and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered
to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron.
They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them."
Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam
and fought against Allah and His Apostle." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, No. 234)

Narrated Anas:
Some people from 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them, so Allah's Apostle
allowed them to go to the herd of camels (given as Zakat) and they drank their milk and urine
(as medicine) but they killed the shepherd and drove away all the camels. So Allah's Apostle sent
(men) in their pursuit to catch them, and they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut,
and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron and they were left in the Harra (a stony
place at Medina) biting the stones. (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 2, No. 577; similar references
are found in 5.505, 7.623, and 8.797)

There is no question that Muhammad was recognized as the legal authority by his community, and
as such he had the right to punish these thieves and murderers, even ordering capital punishment
and having them put to death. The issue is Muhammad's excessive cruelty of cutting off
their hands, feet, destroying their eyes, and letting them die of thirst in the scorching
sun of Arabia. [A detailed discussion of this incident can be found in Silas' article,
Muhammad and the Death of the Uraynians.]
The following is Abdallah's response that is found in the above-mentioned papers:

2- Maiming of enemies' bodies in an
extremely brutal way in the Bible:

Cutting the hands and feet and hanging the alive bodies
until they DIE:

2 Samuel 410 when a man told me, 'Saul is dead,' and thought he was
bringing good news, I seized him and put him to death in Ziklag. That was the reward I
gave him for his news!
11 How much more-when wicked men have killed an innocent man in his own house and on his
own bed-should I not now demand his blood from your hand and rid the earth of you!"
12 So David gave an order to his men, and they killed them. They cut off their
hands and feet and hung the bodies by the pool in Hebron. But they took the
head of Ish-Bosheth and buried it in Abner's tomb at Hebron.

Note to the reader: Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him also
ordered
the cutting of hands and feet of enemies in one incident, because they pretended to have embraced Islam and then betrayed and
killed Muslims. The Prophet sent his men to chase them down, while they were running
back to their tribe, and finally captured them and brought them back for punishment.
But the point is that you can't disprove Islam or any religion through incidents like
this, especially when worse scenarios exist in your own Book!

Using this weasel's (Silas) logic and lies, we can ONLY and ONLY conclude that the Bible
too is a false book and the GOD of the Bible does not exist, and the Biblical Prophets are
liars. Of course none of this is true as none of his false claims and
charges against Islam are also true. (Source:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/prophet_muhammad_not_murderer.htm,
25 October 2004)

RESPONSE:

O. Abdallah claims that the story in the Bible is WORSE than what Muhammad did, but he
fails to explain in what way it is worse. However, the real problem with his comparison
is that Abdallah lied about what really happened. He claims that this story reports
an "extremely brutal" incident of "cutting the hands and feet and hanging
the ALIVE bodies UNTIL THEY DIE".

This is false. The sequence of events reported in 2 Samuel 4:12 (quoted above) is clear:
(1) these men were killed, (2) their hands and feet were cut off, and (3) their DEAD
bodies were hung in a public place for display so that it will be clear to everyone in
the country that David, the new king, will not let anyone get away with unlawfully
killing anyone, not even David's enemies. [Note that Abdallah has removed essential
parts from this story. For a fuller understanding of this incident, one needs to read at
least 2 Samuel 4:1-12,
or even better, the complete story of Saul and David beginning in 1 Samuel 8.]
These opportunists expected to be rewarded by David for "helping the king", but
they received instead the just punishment for murdering an innocent man. One may debate
the meaning or necessity of cutting off their hands and feet and for making a public
display of their dead bodies, but it is clear that there was no "extremely brutal"
act of torture as in the example of Muhammad, and there was no "hanging the alive
bodies until they die". This is merely Abdallah's shameless lie.

And it doesn't become any more true by repeating a similar charge in the second article
published on the same day:

First let us look at the Sayings (Hadiths) of our beloved Prophet that dealt
with camel urine:

Narrated Abu Qilaba: "Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl
or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet
ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine
(as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they
killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the
Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and
brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done),
and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in
'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Abu Qilaba
said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam
and fought against Allah and His Apostle . (Sahih Bukhari,
Ablutions (Wudu'), Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234)"

Cutting the
hands and feet of the enemy in the Bible:

Before we proceed, it is important to know that the Bible's Prophets too did
similar punishment (cutting hands and feet of the enemy):

2 Samuel 4

10 when a man told me, 'Saul is dead,' and thought
he was bringing good news, I seized him and put him to death in Ziklag. That was the
reward I gave him for his news!
11 How much more-when wicked men have killed an innocent man in his own house and on his
own bed-should I not now demand his blood from your hand and rid the earth of you!"
12 So David gave an order to his men, and they killed them. They cut off
their hands and feet and hung the bodies by the pool in Hebron. But
they took the head of Ish-Bosheth and buried it in Abner's tomb at Hebron. (Source:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/urine.htm,
25 October 2004)

RESPONSE:

Abdallah managed to include several further ‘errors’ into this second version. He claims
that "the Bible's Prophets too did similar punishment (cutting hands and feet of the enemy)".
First, these people were not David's enemies. They actually did what they did because they
wanted to be David's friends! This will be obvious to anyone who reads the full story in
2 Samuel 4:1-12. They
wanted to receive a reward from David for killing a man whom they believed was an enemy to David.
They were punished by David not because they were his enemies, but because a just king
has to punish all crimes, even if they are committed by friends.

Second, Osama speaks in the plural, "the Bible's Prophets", as if this was the usual
behavior of ALL the prophets in the Bible. This is another serious lie. There is not
even one prophet in the Bible who did to his enemies what Muhammad did to the Uraynian
shepherds.

However, that is not all of Abdallah's Bible-twisting published on 24 October 2004. In his
first article, we also find these statements:

1- The murders of the Bible's
Prophets:

In his list of nonsensical articles, Silas of the "Answering Islam" team,
wrote a number of articles inventing lies against Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him while
so hypocritically ignoring the same incidents ("murders"
as he called them) that happened from the Bible's own Prophets!

Let us look at few examples of the Biblical Prophets' "murders":

Exodus 213 The next day he went out and saw two Hebrews fighting. He
asked the one in the wrong, "Why are you hitting your fellow Hebrew?"
14 The man said, "Who made you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking
of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?" Then Moses was afraid and
thought, "What I did must have become known."
15 When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and
went to live in Midian, where he sat down by a well.

[...]

Killing Innocent Children:

[...]

Exodus 1314 "In days to come, when your son asks you, 'What does
this mean?' say to him, 'With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the
land of slavery.
15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed every
firstborn in Egypt, both man and animal. This is why I sacrifice to the LORD
the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.'
16 And it will be like a sign on your hand and a symbol on your forehead that the LORD
brought us out of Egypt with his mighty hand."

I will begin with the second part of the above-quoted excerpt. Christians agree with Muslims
that God is the Lord over life and death. It is God's prerogative as our Creator to take
away life at any time, whether it is the life of an old person or that of a young child.
God has given all of us life, he can also take it away. Every day, thousands of children
die due to traffic accidents, diseases, malnutrition, physical abuse, wars, or even for
unknown reasons.

It has never ever been the argument of Answering Islam to blame Muhammad when God took
away the life of children. Abdallah's ‘counter-attack’ on the Bible is completely
ridiculous. This particular passage is listed by him under the main heading "The murders
of the Bible's Prophets:" and the subheading "Killing Innocent Children:", i.e. for
Abdallah this passage is proof that the prophets of the Bible killed innocent children.
This is again a blatant lie. Not one of these "firstborn of the Egyptians" was killed by
a prophet, not even by an Israelite, not even by a human being. It was God who took their
lives.

Furthermore, Abdallah admits that he knows very well what these verses mean,
but he still twists them and lies about them, since he is so absolutely desperate
to slander the Bible in any way he can (and he is quite imaginative in doing so),
hoping it would in some way justify the problems inherent in Islam. [Actually, his
claim that he "fully understands GOD Almighty's wisdom" is basically blasphemous,
even though he qualifies his statement in so far as he only claims to understand
the totality of God's wisdom that is found "in these verses".]

Well, let's turn to the first part of the above-quoted text. Yes, Moses was guilty of
killing an Egyptian. However, Abdallah has again cut off essential parts of the story.
Read Exodus 2:11-15
to get the background. The Egytian was beating one of the Hebrew slaves -- which may or
may not have resulted in the death of the slave. Moses saw this and killed the Egyptian
to rescue the Israelite. In the end, Moses had to flee and to live in exile for forty years
because of this deed. Whatever it was, it was not "premeditated murder" for his own selfish
gain, but was done in defense of a weak person, and resulted in Moses losing everything he
had at that time. Thus, this incident is hardly comparable to Muhammad, who ordered his men
to slaughter his personal enemies, including old people and women, simply because they had
made fun of him and told others not to believe in him! For details, consult the section
Muhammad and his enemies.

Furthermore, this happened many years before Moses was called to become a prophet
of God. He was not a prophet when this happened. Muhammad, on the other hand,
had his personal enemies slaughtered while being a prophet, and because they questioned
his prophethood. That is certainly a rather important difference as well.

Update on Abdallah's further ‘development’ of this article

As was to be expected, soon after the publication of the above article, Abdallah reacted
and, instead of correcting his errors, added more claims to this article on October 26
and 27. I will comment on some aspects of his additions in this update.

Exactly one day after I wrote about and published the above list of lies found in Abdallah's
article, he added yet another one:

Did Elisha really kill "42 innocent children", as claimed by Osama Abdallah?
I don't know what range of ages Abdallah wants his readers to imagine regarding
these children, but for most people the expression "innocent children" may be
appropriate up to the age of puberty, let's say until about 12 years old at most.
After that, it very much depends on what these children are doing as to whether or not
they are still to be considered innocent. Let's have a look at what this is about.
In his article, we find the following:

Killing of Innocent
Children:

The following verse was sent to me by brother
Jibril; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.

2 Kings 223
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking
along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up,
you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around,
looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD .
Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the
youths.

Important Note: When Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him tried to migrate
from Mecca to the city of Al-Ta'if, the pagans there had their own children
throw rocks on the Prophet until his face and body were swollen and
bleeding. The Prophet peace be upon him prayed for the people of Al-Ta'if
to be Guided to Islam. And ultimately they were Guided and they
embraced Islam.

While Prophet Muhammad
loved and forgave children for throwing stones at him, the Bible shows
ZERO tolerance to even innocent name-calling from children; let alone
having them throwing stones!!

Various issues are involved here. Let us look at the story about Elisha. Remember,
we are still in Abdallah's section titled "1- The murders of the Bible's Prophets:",
subsection "Killing of Innocent Children:". Abdallah claims (without any evidence)
that this group of young men (equivalent to a modern day "street gang") were innocent
children. That is the first element of clear misrepresentation. He quotes the text speaking
about youths, but then treats it as if they were little, helpless, innocent children.

The second lie is that it was Elisha who killed these young men. Not at all. He did not even
touch them. Neither did he send any of his followers to kill them. Because of what these young
people did, he called down on them a curse in the name of God. And it was GOD, who is in control
of all the wild beasts, who sent those bears that killed some of these youths. If this curse
in the name of the LORD had not been in agreement with the LORD's will, nothing would
have happened. Elisha's curse is not even said to have been specific. God could have punished
them by lightning bolt, or by letting the earth swallow them (like he did with the people of
Korah, cf. Numbers 16:1-34),
or in any other way. It was the sovereign decision of God whether or not to punish, and
how to punish these youths. As stated above, this article is not the place of a detailed
discussion of every issue. It is merely to expose some of the obvious lies and gross
misrepresentations of the Bible propagated by Abdallah. This incident of Elisha's
encounter with these youths in 2 Kings 2 is discussed in great detail in articles by
Glenn Miller and
J.P. Holding, articles
that Abdallah could have found easily if he had been interested in knowing the truth.
Let's hope that he will at least read them before he makes any further comments on
the issue.

A couple of side remarks:

(a) Contrary to the above example, in which a gang of youths was punished for what they had done
(though critics may argue whether or not the punishment was appropriate), the Qur'an contains
a story of a man from God who kills an innocent boy on the mere suspicion that he may
become disobedient in the future:

So they went on until, when they met a boy, he slew him. (Musa) said: Have you slain
an innocent person otherwise than for manslaughter? Certainly you have done an evil thing
... And as for the boy, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should make
disobedience and ingratitude to come upon them: Surah 18:74, 80 Shakir

(b) Lest Abdallah objects to calling curses on others, ... we want to note that Muhammad
challenged Christians to a cursing match in which Muhammad would have rained down curses
on their sons, or children, as well. This is prescribed in the Qur'an:

But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge,
then say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our
near people and your near people, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse
of Allah on the liars. S. 3:61 Shakir

Abdallah apparently considered his argument so strong and so important that he even
added it in big bold letters to the main entry page of his site:

42 innocent children were killed using
Wild Bears by Prophet Elisha!Prophet Muhammad on the other hand loved children
even those who threw stones at him in the city of Al-Ta'if.(click here)

However, as even Abdallah admits here, these were wild bears, i.e. under God's sole
control. They were not some bears owned by Elisha that he unleashed on the youths simply
because he felt like it. Some evil people keep ferocious dogs and sometimes command them
to attack other people. Elisha didn't own a ranch with dangerous animals that he could command,
he was not even at home at the time, but on the road traveling, and the context of 2 Kings 1-2
suggests that he was traveling alone. Abdallah's scenario is again without any foundation.
He is wrong on both counts: neither were these innocent children, nor did Elisha kill
them. It is merely his wishful thinking that so desperately seeks to find something
(anything!) negative about prophets in the Bible as if that could somehow justify the crimes
of Muhammad, and exonorate him in the eyes of an increasingly sceptical world.

Interestingly, Abdallah is able to quote from the Bible (even though he completely
misrepresented his source), but about Muhammad he only makes claims without presenting
any evidence. Where is Abdallah's citation of original sources for this incident at
al-Ta'if? After all, does he not want his readers to be able to verify whether his claims
are true? His track record in regard to accurate representation of sources is hardly a
recommendation for believing any of his statements without checking up on them.

Since this article is not about Abdallah's eulogies of Muhammad, but is concerned
with his lies about the Bible, I will place my evaluation of his claims regarding
Muhammad in al-Ta'if into an appendix.

In any case, by adding yet another false claim about Elisha, Abdallah did nothing but increase
the number of lies and and misrepresentations of God's prophets in his article. On 27 October,
however, he reacted to my above critique of his false claims by (a) writing a separate response
article (on which I will comment below), and (b) by making a couple of
minor changes to his original article. First, Abdallah added one new paragraph to his claim
about David. Though most is still the same, I am going to quote his complete ‘revised’
section about David again in order to provide the context:

2- Maiming of enemies' bodies in an
extremely brutal way in the Bible:

Cutting the hands and feet and hanging the alive
bodies until they DIE:

2 Samuel 410 when a man
told me, 'Saul is dead,' and thought he was bringing good news, I seized him and
put him to death in Ziklag. That was the reward I gave him for his news! 11
How much more-when wicked men have killed an innocent man in his own house and
on his own bed-should I not now demand his blood from your hand and rid the
earth of you!" 12 So David gave an order to his men, and they killed them.
They cut off their hands and feet and hung the bodies by the pool in
Hebron. But they took the head of Ish-Bosheth and buried it in
Abner's tomb at Hebron.

It
is not clear if the maimed bodies were hanged on the trees before or after they
were fully dead. This is why I took the
worst-case-scenario and used it against the bible; that is the bodies were still
alive when they were hanged. Also, since David killed them,
then they technically became his enemies. It
doesn't matter whether they were Israelites or not.

RESPONSE:

This last paragraph is the part that was newly added. Supposedly this is Abdallah's answer(??)
to the fact that his claim had been exposed as blatantly wrong (see above;
read it again carefully). Frankly, this is a rather lame excuse. Either somebody is
dead, or he is not dead. And if somebody is not dead yet (i.e. he is still alive),
then he was not killed. However, the sentence BEFORE the part about the cutting of hands
and feet and hanging the bodies at the pool states clearly that they had been killed.
So, if they were killed, then they were dead. This is obvious to anyone but Abdallah.

[Also, Abdallah's innovative theory that "they technically became David's enemies" after they
were killed, is utterly ludicrous. The point is whether or not they were his enemies at
the time when David decided that they had to be killed. The clear answer to this question
is: No! The problem here is not that the passage is unclear, but it is Abdallah's inability
to admit that he was wrong. However, the longer he tries to defend the indefensible the more
‘intelligent’ he will look. Finally, since we did not even mention the ethnicity
of the people, I am not sure what objection he tries to ‘refute’ with the last
statement he made in the above paragraph.]

Actually, even though Abdallah refuses to acknowledge that he was simply wrong about this claim,
with the first sentence in his newly added statement, "It is not clear if the maimed bodies
were hanged on the trees before or after they were fully dead", he admits at least that it is not
clear evidence for the claim that he had put in big and bold letters over this section of his
paper, i.e. "2- Maiming of enemies' bodies in an extremely brutal way in
the Bible". Since this was the only passage he had quoted to support this claim,
he is now left without any proof at all for it. Even in his own "court room", by his own
admission, his ‘evidence’ is now tossed out as inconclusive.

The matter is very easy: If this passage had been about Muhammad, and any Christian
had then claimed what Osama Abdallah claimed about David, Abdallah would have been
absolutely outraged, would have called him an obvious liar, and would have invented
many more insults for him. However, since it is not in the Qur'an, but in the Bible,
he therefore feels fully justified to do what he does, and doesn't need to have a bad
conscience about it. If it is in the Bible, then it is good and right to assume the worst,
to argue from silence, and even to rearrange the verses to make them say what they don't
say. To anyone who reads the story with an unbiased mind, the difference between these
two incidents is absolutely clear:

Regarding Muhammad:

... The news reached the Prophet early in the morning
and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered
to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron.
They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them."

Regarding David:

... So David gave an order to his men, and they killed them. They cut off their hands and feet
and hung the bodies by the pool in Hebron. ...

Abdallah, however, feels fully justified to rearrange the sequence of events in the verse
and read instead:

... So David gave an order to his men, and they first cut off their hands and feet. Then
they hung the bodies alive by the pool in Hebron until they died under great pain. That is
how they killed them.

Abdallah constantly accuses Christians of having corrupted the Bible. However, the only one
who feels obviously free to corrupt its plain meaning is Abdallah, and he doesn't even have
a bad conscience about it. Any decent person who cares the least for truth would have immediately
withdrawn this claim and apologized for misrepresenting David so badly (particularly since David
is a great prophet of God even in the Qur'an). However, by doing so, Abdallah only exposes how
little he cares about truth; he is only concerned about maligning the Bible by any way imaginable.

Ironically, it is exactly as Abdallah said: "I took the worst-case-scenario and used it against
the bible." What is a ‘worst-case-scenario’? It is something that is speculative,
it is not reality. I.e. Abdallah sat down and asked himself not, "What does this report mean?",
but "How can I make this story appear in the worst possible light?" Well, as often, the question
determines the answer, and doing so he assumed something that was not written, even
a meaning that is against what is plainly written, and ‘used it against the Bible’.
That is the whole point. Instead of properly interpreting what is there, he injected his
worst imagination into the Bible text, and then he claimed that this is what happened.
In plain language, that is called a lie.

Actually, the fact that Abdallah called this ‘the worst-case-scenario’ is itself
an indictment against Muhammad, since Abdallah projected Muhammad's actual deeds into
the story of David. David didn't do this, but Muhammad did. Using Abdallah's own concept:
Muhammad is the worst-case-scenario of a prophet. Muhammad is more than a nightmare, he is
the worst-case-scenario come true.

[ Side remark:
Was Muhammad really that bad? Ponder this: Not only did Muhammad give orders to his followers
to brutally torture the Uraynian shepherds (who may well have deserved the death penalty),
he also commanded his men to torture Kinana in order to
get at his hidden treasures. After it was clear that he would not reveal them, and Kinana
was about to die any minute because of the cruel torture that had been applied on him,
he ordered them to strike off his head. ]

Apart from adding this one insubstantial paragraph as an attempt to justify his misrepresentation
of the story about David, and slightly rearranging the sequence of some other statements,
Abdallah did not change ANYTHING in his article in response to my rebuttal.
He did not correct even one of his errors, let alone apologize for making them. This in itself
is further evidence that they were not unintentional mistakes, but were deliberate lies from
the beginning.

Instead of correcting his false claims, he did something else. Abdallah published his reaction
in a separate article under the title "Refutation to the preposterous
LIES of Jochen Katz about his Bible not containing inhumane murders from its Prophets!"
Abdallah seemingly operates under the assumption that if he screams at the top of his lungs,
flings insults at his opponents, and charges them with all kinds of evil things, then people
will overlook that he has actually no answer to the arguments presented by them.

Abdallah calls me a liar, even more, he claims that I published "preposterous lies". However,
Abdallah overlooked that it is not enough to CALL somebody a liar and producer of "preposterous
lies", but one needs to PROVE it. Otherwise this charge is merely an insult; actually, it is
a lie in itself.

Since it will be a rather tedious exercise to respond to the nonsense Abdallah produced in
that article, I will do so in a separate rebuttal instead of unduly lengthening this paper.
Nevertheless, let me answer at least to the charge made in the title chosen by Abdallah. His
accusation can only refer to the one statement made at the end of my discussion of the story
about David in 2 Samuel 4 (see above), where I wrote that "There is
not even one prophet in the Bible who did to his enemies what Muhammad did to the Uraynian
shepherds," and the context of the statement makes it clear that I was talking about the cruel
torture that Muhammad ordered his men to perform on these people.

As I said, it is easy to call anyone a liar. The issue is if one can prove the charge. Therefore,
we have to ask: How would anyone be able to show that my statement was indeed a "preposterous
lie"? That should not be hard, right? One would simply have to quote the Bible passages in which
the prophets of God were torturing their enemies. That would in fact be the only reasonable way
to do so. [Note that it must actually refer to a multiplicity of passages since Abdallah charges
me not only with one lie but with "preposterous LIES" (in the plural), and he also speaks about
inhumane murders (plural) committed by the Biblical prophets (in the plural).]
Well then, does Abdallah quote such passages in his reply? Not one! I read Abdallah's article
several times (that is torture in itself), and was unable to find even one passage which
Abdallah presents as evidence that the "Bible is containing inhumane murders from its Prophets".
No, I do not mean to say that Abdallah brought some passages to the table, but they were
all misrepresented, as is the case so often in Abdallah's articles. It is just as I said:
Abdallah did not even attempt to present any such passage at all.

Thus: In what sense has he refuted me? This will probably forever remain Abdallah's secret.

Although Abdallah's response was nothing but hot air, if the reader wants to put himself
through the torture of examining step by step the absolute nonsense that Abdallah produced
in order to evade the issues raised in my original article (above), he is
invited to continue with my answer to his ‘refutation’.